Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88758 Case Number: LCR12139 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SWITZER AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning: (a) demarcation between porters and contract cleaning staff, and (b) the working of a 5-day week (Monday to Friday) for display staff. CLAIM (A): Demarcation between porters and contract cleaning staff.
Recommendation:
8. CLAIM (A)
The Court, having heard the submissions in this case, is
satisfied that the duties which the claimants' are being
required to carry out, are appropriate to their grade. The
Court is not satisfied however, that the dispute has been
fully discussed at local level and therefore recommends that
the parties resume local discussions. Should they fail to
reach agreement, the Court will, when so informed, make a
recommendation.
CLAIM (B)
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88758 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12139
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SWITZER AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:
(a) demarcation between porters and contract cleaning staff,
and
(b) the working of a 5-day week (Monday to Friday) for
display staff.
CLAIM (A): Demarcation between porters and contract cleaning
staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1988, the Company made it's cleaning staff redundant
and brought in outside contractors to carry out the work. The
Union claims that the Company is now requesting the porters to
carry out work previously carried out by the redundant cleaners
i.e. the removal of boxes, empty cartons etc. from within the
store. The Company claims that this work is normal portering work
and although it may, until recently, have been performed by
cleaning staff, it was previously undertaken by porters. As no
agreement could be reached locally between the shopsteward and
management the claim along with claim (b) was referred on 2nd
August, 1988 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 27th
September, 1988, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court,
on 11th October, 1988. The Labour Court investigated the dispute
on 11th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of contract cleaners was a very emotive
issue and the Union expressed concern about their
introduction. At the time of their introduction the Union's
members did everything possible to attempt to find a practical
alternative so as to avoid redundancies. The Union also
opposed the Company's decision as technically there could not
be a redundancy situation if contractors were to replace the
cleaners already employed.
2. During discussions on the redundancies, the Union
indicated that if contract cleaners were to be introduced,
then the porters would not carry out any duties that would be
proper to the contract cleaners. The porters will not carry
out work that was always proper to the cleaning staff prior to
the enforced redundancies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This matter has only become an issue since the
introduction of contract cleaning. It is extraordinary that
members of staff would, as a result, wish to discontinue carry
out work which is proper to their grade and which has always
been carried out by that grade.
2. In all other department stores, porters, represented by
the Union, carry out the work in question.
CLAIM (b): The working of a five day week (Monday to Friday)
for display staff.
BACKGROUND:
5. The Company employs 6 display staff. One person works a 5 day
week (Monday to Friday) with overtime on Saturdays, when required.
The remaining 5 workers who were recruited in 1986 work 5 over 6
days (Monday to Saturday) and each person is normally rostered to
work every 5th Saturday. The Union claims that display staff
traditionally worked the 5 day week and that the Company has taken
unreasonable advantage of the workers concerned who were unaware
that they should be employed on a 5 day per week basis with
overtime for Saturday. The Company maintained that it employed
the 5 display staff on the basis of a 5 over 6 day week and that
in the absence of any written agreement with the Union on the
matter, it had not acted improperly. As the parties could not
reach agreement on the dispute, it was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Traditionally, display staff in the Dublin Drapery Trade
work a 5 day week (Monday to Friday) with Saturday work being
paid at overtime rates. When a number of display staff left
the Company new staff were employed. These new staff were
unaware that they should be employed on a 5 day week basis.
The Union believes that the Company has deceived the new staff
by taking them on on a 5 over 6 day basis with no consultation
or agreement with the Union.
2. Management, by slight of hand, recruited staff and put
them on the wrong hours of work. All display staff should
enjoy the same hours of work, instead of some being treated as
2nd class staff as a result of the Company taking advantage of
the situation arising from new staff joining the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. All new employees taken on in April, 1987, and thereafter,
were offered their positions on the basis of specified terms
and conditions of employment, irrespective of personal
arrangements that previous staff enjoyed. All new staff
accepted the offer and are working the 5 over 6 day system
to-date. Only one member of the display staff works a 5 day
week, (Monday to Friday).
2. The Company is not aware of any agreement with the Union
which states that display staff would work a 5 day rota only.
The Union have failed to produce any such agreement.
3. The employees concerned are an integral part of the
Company's marketing effort, and it is essential that they be
available for all hours during which the store is trading. It
is unrealistic to take the view that they can work under
separate arrangements from their retail colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. CLAIM (A)
The Court, having heard the submissions in this case, is
satisfied that the duties which the claimants' are being
required to carry out, are appropriate to their grade. The
Court is not satisfied however, that the dispute has been
fully discussed at local level and therefore recommends that
the parties resume local discussions. Should they fail to
reach agreement, the Court will, when so informed, make a
recommendation.
CLAIM (B)
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
28th November, 1988.
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman